2026:HHC:28997 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.133 of 2024 with Cr.MMO No.43 of 2024 Date of Decision: 17.07.2026 _______________________________________________________ 1. Cr.MMO No.133 of 2024 Ram Rani …….Petitioner Versus Rampal & others … Respondents 2. Cr.MMO No.43 of 2024 Raj Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Prantap Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner in Cr.MMO No.133 of 2024 and Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner in Cr.MMO No.43 of 2024. For the Respondent: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 & 3 in Cr.MMO No.133 of 2024. Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State in both the petitions. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 02 of 2018, dated 12.04.2018, under Sections 420, , 468, 471, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:28997 477-A, 120B of IPC and Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station, State Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau (SV & ACB), Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh alongwith all consequential proceedings in Sessions Trial No.05 of 2023, titled State of Himachal Pradesh versus Rakesh Kumar and others, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Una District Una, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties, are that the FIR, sought to be quashed, came to be lodged at the behest of Respondent No. 1, Shri Ram Pal (hereinafter referred to as the "complainant"). The aforesaid complainant presented a written complaint (Annexure R-1) at Police Station, SV & ACB, Una, stating therein that in the year 2015, he met Patwari, Mehatpur, namely Rakesh Kumar, with regard to purchase of land. Allegedly, aforesaid Patwari introduced the complainant to Rahul (Proforma-respondent No. 3) and present petitioner Ram Rani. Above-named Rahul and Ram Rani executed a sale deed of land in favour of the complainant before the Sub-Registrar, Una. Complainant further alleged that at the time of execution of sale deed, Patwari Rakesh Kumar demanded an illegal gratification (bribe) to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- for getting the purchased land demarcated. Pursuant to 3 2026:HHC:28997 aforesaid complaint, FIR No. 02 of 2018, dated 12.04.2018 came to be registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station SV & ACB, Una (Annexure R-2). Consequent to aforesaid FIR, a trap was laid on 12.04.2018, wherein Patwari Rakesh Kumar was caught red-handed with bribe money of Rs. 5,000. The above-named Patwari was arrested and interrogated, who during his investigation, revealed that land sold by Rahul and Ram Rani to the complainant was not standing in their names at the time of registration of sale deed dated 08.12.2015. It also came to be revealed in the investigation that Patwari Rakesh Kumar, in connivance with Rahul, Ram Rani, and co-accused Raj Kumar, who was then posted as the Tehsildar, Una, deceived the complainant in executing the sale deed of land comprised in Khewat No.258, situate at Basdehra, which was not in the name of the sellers i.e. Rahul and Ram Rani. The sale deed was executed on the basis of old Jamabandis, which did not disclose that the predecessor-in-interest of Rahul and Ram Rani had already sold the said land and that not much land was left in their name in the year, 2015. After completion of the investigation, police has already presented the challan in the competent Court of law. Since one of the accused, namely Rahul, failed to appear before the trial Court despite notices and warrants issued to him, he was declared as proclaimed offender. Before the aforesaid proceedings could be taken to their 4 2026:HHC:28997 logical end, petitioner, Ram Rani, who had allegedly sold the land to the complainant in connivance with co-accused Rahul and Rakesh Kumar, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of the FIR. 3. Precisely, the case of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Prantap Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that no case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is made out against the petitioner. He submitted that mischief, if any, can be said to have been committed by co-accused Rakesh Kumar, who, despite having knowledge of the fact that the land comprised in Khewat No.258, situate at Basdehra, qua which sale deed was executed in favour of the complainant did not belong to the petitioner and the co-owner Rahul, connived with the then Tehsildar in execution of the sale deed. It is further submitted that petitioner, Ram Rani, being a rustic villager, had no knowledge with regard to the land, if any, standing in her name, rather she was merely made to sign blank papers. 4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis the contents of the FIR, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for 5 2026:HHC:28997 the petitioner that no case is made out against the petitioner under the relevant provisions of law, as detailed above. There is no dispute that at the time of execution of sale deed in favour of the complainant, petitioner, Ram Rani and co-accused, Rahul, were not the owners of the land qua which they had agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant. 5. The final report/challan submitted by the Investigating Agency under Section 173 Cr.P.C., before the competent Court of law, clearly reveals that co-accused Rakesh Kumar, who at the relevant time was working as Patwari of the area concerned, in connivance with the present petitioner Ram Rani, Rahul, and Raj Kumar, who at the relevant time was working as Tehsildar, Una deceived the complainant by executing the sale deed of the land which was not in the names of the sellers, namely Rahul and Ram Rani. The sale deed was executed on the basis of old Jamabandis, which did not disclose that predecessor-in-interest of Rahul and Ram Rani had already sold the land comprised in Khewat No.258, situate at Basdehra and no land was left in their names in the year, 2015. Co- accused Raj Kumar, the then Tehsildar, in connivance with other accused, wrongly attested Mutation No. 917. Though co-accused Rakesh Kumar had made an entry in red ink on the Sarkar Parat of the mutation to the effect that the sellers had sold more than their 6 2026:HHC:28997 share of the land, but same was completely ignored by co-accused Raj Kumar, while attesting the mutation. Though, noting made by co- accused Rakesh Kumar was clearly legible at the time of attestation of the mutation, but yet above-named co-accused Raj Kumar ignored the same and proceeded to attest the mutation. Since the factum with regard to there being no land comprised in Khewat No.258, situate at Basdehra standing in their names was in the knowledge of the present petitioner and co-accused Rahul, which fact actually had come to their knowledge in the year 2015 itself, it cannot be said that they had no intention to deceive the complainant, who, otherwise believing co-accused Rakesh, who at the relevant time was working as a Patwari, proceeded to pay a hefty amount for the sale of the land. Since sale consideration was received by the petitioner and other co-accused Rahul, coupled with the fact that one of the co- accused, who had allegedly demanded bribe, was caught red- handed, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that prima-facie, no case is made out against the petitioner under the aforesaid provisions of law. 6. Leaving everything aside, question with regard to allegation of petitioner, being duped by another co-accused, is a question to be determined by learned Court below in totality of evidence collected on record by prosecution, but certainly having 7 2026:HHC:28997 taken note of the fact that in the year 2015, not much land was left in the name of the petitioner, coupled with the fact that co-accused Rakesh Kumar, who was caught red-handed while taking bribe, had otherwise made endorsement on the Jamabandi with regard to the fact that land proposed to be sold by petitioner, Ram Rani and co- accused Rahul had already been sold by their predecessor-in- interest, this Court is not persuaded to agree with the counsel representing petitioner that they had no knowledge with regard to their not having land in their name.Prima facie, case under Sections 420, , 468, 471, 477-A, 120B of IPC and Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against petitioner and as such, this Court is not persuaded to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C( now Section 528 of BNSS) to quash the FIR, which in the given facts and circumstances, is required to be taken to its logical end by a competent Court of law on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence led on record by the respective parties. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly same is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any. 8. Needless to say, any observations and findings given in the instant order shall have no bearing on the merits of the main case, 8 2026:HHC:28997 rather same have been made only for the purpose of disposal of the present petition and learned Court below shall decide the case independently on the basis of totality of evidence led on record by the respective parties, without being influenced by any observation made hereinabove. Cr.MMO No.43 of 2024 9. Learned counsel representing the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition. Ordered accordingly. 10. It is clarified that observations, if any, made in the order dared 17.07.2026 passed in Cr.MMO No.133 of 2024 qua the petitioner shall not be of any relevance or consequence insofar as the guilt of the present petitioner is concerned, rather same shall be determined by the competent Court of law on the basis of the totality of the evidence led on record by the respective parties, without being influenced either by the observations made in the aforesaid order or by any observations contained in the present order (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 17,2026 (shankar)